Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41079691›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2025

Artificial intelligence in nursing: a systematic review of attitudes, literacy, readiness, and adoption intentions among nursing students and practicing nurses.

Rabie Adel El Arab, Alya H Alshakihs, Sarah H Alabdulwahab, Yasmeen S Almubarak, Shahad S Alkhalifah, Amany Abdrbo, Salwa Hassanein, Mette Sagbakken

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rabie Adel El ArabAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Alya H AlshakihsAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Sarah H AlabdulwahabAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Yasmeen S AlmubarakAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Shahad S AlkhalifahAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Amany AbdrboAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Salwa HassaneinAlmoosa College of Health Sciences, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Mette SagbakkenFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) could reshape healthcare delivery, but its adoption depends on nurses' attitudes, literacy, readiness, and intentions. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020, we searched six databases from inception to May 2025 and undertook thematic synthesis. A non-systematic horizon scan (June-August 2025) informed interpretation only. Results: Thirty-seven studies met inclusion: 28 analytical cross-sectional surveys, 8 qualitative studies, and 1 quasi-experimental trial.Nursing students generally held moderately positive attitudes towards AI; senior students were more enthusiastic than juniors, and men more than women. Students reported moderate literacy and readiness; prior AI training and stronger computer skills correlated with more favourable attitudes and greater adoption intentions, whereas anxiety dampened readiness. Many students doubted AI's ability to outperform humans in routine tasks and flagged integrity risks, underscoring the need for age-appropriate instruction and safeguards. Practising nurses expressed moderate safety and error concerns but showed greater optimism among younger staff; across studies, nurses consistently argued AI should augment-not replace-human empathy and judgement. Targeted training substantially improved, and largely maintained, AI knowledge; leadership endorsement and phased, user-centred roll-outs strengthened readiness, while outdated infrastructure, resource constraints, ethical/privacy concerns, and fear of deskilling impeded progress. Determinants of attitudes and intentions clustered around perceived usefulness/performance and effort expectancy, self-efficacy, digital literacy, and facilitating conditions. The horizon scan added signals of a preparedness-impact gap among nurse leaders, syllabus/policy language as a faculty readiness multiplier, role-specific adoption gaps (e.g., lower use among head nurses despite positive attitudes), and coexistence of high AI anxiety with positive attitudes in students. Conclusion: Global nursing exhibits guarded optimism grounded in moderate literacy and readiness yet constrained by infrastructural, ethical, and pedagogical barriers. Adoption is driven by perceived usefulness, self-efficacy, and enabling environments, with anxiety and demographics moderating engagement. Priorities include embedding longitudinal AI competencies in curricula, iterative hands-on training, robust governance/ethics, and modernised infrastructure. Evidence dominated by cross-sectional designs and a narrow set of countries should be strengthened through longitudinal and experimental studies that validate psychometrics cross-culturally and link self-reports to objective use and patient-safety outcomes.

Indexed as

adoption intentionsAI literacyAI readinessartificial intelligenceattitudesnursingnursing studentstechnology acceptance

Identifiers

PMID41079691
PMCPMC12507812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.